[ssaftler]

...he said this was one of, if not the only STATE-RUN Veterans’ homes...therefore, no one was allowed to be armed according to CA law.

If that's the case, it's a miracle that only 3 innocent lives were taken. Unless, of course, the 3 were specifically targeted!

[Pontiac]

I am not up to speed on this matter, and I am not a veteran, but I talked to a good friend of mine tonight (who is a veteran here in CA), and he said this was one of, if not the only STATE-RUN Veterans’ homes...therefore, no one was allowed to be armed according to CA law.

Apparently state law does not prohibit the officers from being armed but the decision has been made that they won’t be armed.

In 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of State Hospitals to begin arming CSLEA-represented officers at its sites. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and by a 78-1 margin in the Assembly.

"I am sensitive to the unique challenges of providing security in our states' mental hospitals," he wrote. "This is a matter, however, best left to the discretion of the department director who already has authority to arm its officers."

My guess is that the director does not have it in the budget to arm the officers. The Union probably wants the officers armed to put a bunch of the officers in a higher wage grade.

Usually in the private sector an armed security guard gets a couple dollars an hour extra pay.

My guess in a government union it can only be more.

Here it probably comes down to money.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Unless, of course, the 3 were specifically targeted!” <<

Thank You Captain Obvious!

Someone is always targeted in these mass shooting events.

Its always a political life saver for some Democrat official (like Tucson, got a judge out of Obama’s way)
.